Hood v. United States Government et al

Filing 39

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 31 35 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/13/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rbe, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBIN HOOD, et al.,

No. C 12-01542
Plaintiffs,

11
12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; REVOKING
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

US GOVERNMENT, et al.,
13
14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
16
On March 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a complaint, on behalf of himself and all others who have
17
been “robbed by banks, attorneys and the government they tried to support,” against the United States
18
Government and the “Banking Industry” alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
19
Organizations Act (RICO). Compl. at 2 (Dkt. 1). In addition to his complaint, plaintiff filed an
20
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On April 16, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915(e)(2), the Court issued an Order granting plaintiff IFP status, and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint
22
for failure to state a claim for relief. See April 16, 2012 Order, Dkt. 12 (citing 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)
23
(authorizing federal courts to dismiss a complaint filed IFP if the Court determines that the complaint
24
is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted)). Plaintiff thereafter made a number
25
of filings in this case, none of which stated a claim for relief. The Court therefore dismissed this case
26
with prejudice on June 18, 2012.
27
On June 16, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Authenticate Documents as the Court Might Want
28
to Reconsider.” Dkt. 31. Civil Local Rule 7-9 allows a party to seek reconsideration where it can

1
2
3
4

show:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the
interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must
show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for
reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory
order; or

5
6
7
8

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the
time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive
legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory
order.

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Civ. L. R. 7-9. Plaintiff’s motion makes no such showing. He argues that “to dismiss these cases would
show a cover-up to such complaints in this Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization in which
other related cases show such abuses.” Dkt. 31 at 1. This is not a sufficient showing to warrant
reconsideration. Civ. L. R. 7-9. The motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff has also filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis in this closed case. As
the case is already closed, the application is DENIED.
On July 31, 2012, plaintiff appealed the Court’s dismissal order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On August 13, 2012, the Ninth Circuit referred the case back to this Court for the limited
purpose of determining whether IFP status should continue for this appeal, or whether the appeal is
frivolous or taken in bad faith. See Referral Notice, No. 12-16703, Dkt. 2 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of forma
pauperis status is appropriate where district court finds the appeal to be frivolous)). Plaintiff’s
complaint generally alleged a RICO violation, but did not set forth any specific facts or otherwise set
forth an intelligible RICO claim. See dkt. 12. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend,
and stated that the amended complaint “shall (1) state the basis for federal jurisdiction; (2) specifically
identify the claims that plaintiff is asserting (for example, if plaintiff is suing under a federal or state
statute, the complaint shall identify that statute); (3) state, as clearly as possible, the facts giving rise to
the complaint, including the dates upon which the events occurred; and (4) state the relief that plaintiff
seeks.” Id. Plaintiff thereafter made a number of filings in this case, but did not file an amended
2

1

complaint that satisfied any of these requirements. See dkt. 27. The Court therefore dismissed the case

2

with prejudice. Id. The Court now finds that the appeal is frivolous, and hereby REVOKES plaintiff’s

3

IFP status.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: August 13, 2012
_______________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3